You are here

Group Hears Of Possible Harm, Benefits Of Proposed EPA Rule

Group Hears Of Possible Harm, Benefits Of Proposed EPA Rule

John Lyon • Arkansas News Bureau - Dan Byers of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce discusses the proposed federal rule on carbon emissions during a stakeholders meeting at the office of the Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality on Thursday, Aug. 28, 2014.

NORTH LITTLE ROCK — A representative of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce warned Thursday that Arkansas would be less competitive in attracting businesses with high energy needs if a proposed federal rule on carbon dioxide emissions is implemented without changes.

A representative of the Sierra Club said the cost of complying with the rule would be less than the cost of doing nothing.

The comments were made at a meeting of representatives of power companies, environmental groups and others who would be affected by the proposed Environmental Protection Agency rule, which seeks to cut carbon dioxide emissions from America’s power sector by 30 percent by 2030 compared to 2005 levels. Several speakers addressed the group at the Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality’s office in North Little Rock.

Dan Byers, senior policy director for the U.S. Chamber of Commerce’s Institute for 21st Century Energy, said Arkansas now has the fifth-lowest electricity rates in the country.

“Manufacturing, petrochemical, all of these energy-intensive industries have decided to locate here for the very reason that Arkansas is one of the most affordable states in terms of electricity prices,” he said. “We think that’s threatened by this rule — threatened in a big way.”

The draft rule calls for Arkansas’ power sector to reduce CO2 emissions by 44 percent by 2030 and to demonstrate an average reduction of 41 percent between 2020 and 2029. Byers said that is a steeper target than all but a handful of states would have to meet.

Byers said EPA has estimated that because of the rule electricity rates would raise between 6 percent and 7 percent nationally in 2020 and that in western Arkansas they would raise 11.7 percent, with the rest of the state seeing a 4.7 percent increase.

Glen Hooks, director of the Arkansas chapter of the Sierra Club, said low electricity rates have not stopped Arkansas from being one of the poorest states in the country. It is also one of the unhealthiest states in the country, he said.

“I think there’s a direct correlation in the way we’ve depended on our fossil fuels and our health,” he said.

Regarding Arkansas’ relatively steep target, Hooks said, “We’ve been pretty coal-heavy compared to other states. We’ve even opened a couple of new coal plants in the last five years, and we haven’t invested in renewable energy like a lot of other states have. We’re a little behind the curve, which makes our goal and our target a little stronger.”

Byers said Arkansas’ poverty is a good argument against the projected increase in electricity rates.

“Imagine what that does to folks on the lower end of the income spectrum,” he said.

The American Council for an Energy Efficient Economy has said Arkansas could achieve 40 percent of its CO2 reduction target through energy-efficiency measures. Economist James Metzger, CEO of HISTECON Associates of Little Rock, noted that estimate and said more energy-efficiency measures would mean more jobs.

Metzger said 9,000 jobs and $1 billion in sales have already been generated in Arkansas by companies doing business in the energy-efficiency sector, and another 3,500 jobs and $550 million have been generated indirectly in related sectors.

Al Armendariz, senior campaign representative for the Sierra Club’s Beyond Coal Campaign, said Arkansas has 19 power plants and that in 2013 the plants emitted 41 million tons of carbon pollution. By 2030, the three oldest of the plants will be nearly 50 years old, he said.

Armendariz also said average temperatures have risen across the country since the beginning of the 20th century, with seven of the 10 hottest years on record occurring since 1998. Taxpayers are already paying for climate change in the form of federal disaster aid, which totaled $100 billion for weather-related disasters in 2012, he said.

“The costs of inaction are just unacceptable,” he said. “We have to find a way.”

The stakeholders’ group will work with ADEQ to prepare a state plan for compliance with the rule, which is expected to be finalized by June 1. The public-comment period for the rule is scheduled to close Oct. 19.